Jump to content

Talk:Chapman University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Edits to Notable Faculty

For some reason, someone (I believe "Meliton," if I'm reading the page history correctly), has mucked up the Notable Faculty list. A series of changes on January 17, 2009 resulted in a section that was de-alphabetized, less wikified, and which removed numerous names--all of which were either of persons who are the subject of their own Wikipedia entries (and internal links were provided) or who were substantially referenced in other Wikipedia entries (again with internal links). And all this was done with no mention on the talk pages and no edit summary. I had taken the time to input all those names, so of course I'm annoyed, but I think that this behavior pretty objectively violates numerous Wikipedia norms. I plan to undo the changes when I get a chance, but I wanted to raise attention to the problem, in hopes that we won't see this kind of thing again. If you think there's a reason to substantially edit someone's work, at least give some notice and say why you're doing it. And for goodness sake don't de-alphabetize and de-wikify something--there's never a reason for that! Rlsusc (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mission Statement

Anyone know what the greek on the shield is so that the real motto can go up instead of the mission statement? Madmaxmarchhare 00:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think that Chapman's (or any other college's) mission statement belongs in an encyclopedic entry - it seems like advertisement. BlackberryLaw 10:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If the mission statement is what the university uses to operate - it is pertinent. All mission statements may look like advertisements, they are usually corny -- but a school's mission statement is a school's mission statement. Why wouldn't it be pertinent?? Nicholas SL Smith 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric M. Stinton Center for Dinosaur Research

Someone from a Chapman University IP (192.77.116.15 (talk · contribs)) has added the Eric M. Stinton Center for Dinosaur Research twice to the article. According to the Chapman University Website, the only info on an Eric Stinton is on a member of the crew team [1]. Unless someone can provide a reliable resource on the Dinosaur Research Center, it can only be assumed that the information added is false. Adding false information is considered vandalism, and among other remedies, adding the information into the Chapman University article may result in getting the Chapman University IP blocked from editing, and getting the Chapman University article protected against editing by anonymous IPs. BlankVerse 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Movie Filming Locations

I can't say I know for sure, but I'm skeptical about some of those movies being filmed nearby or at Chapman campus (Apocalypto and Blood Diamond are two obvious examples). Someone might want to look into this or remove these. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.203.66.2 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Apocalypto was screened at Chapman before its release. I don't think it was filmed there. -Fadookie Talk 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct -- neither Apocalypto nor Blood Diamond were filmed at or near Chapman. Apocalypto did screen at Chapman (I was there!) but to my knowledge there's no connection with Blood Diamond. Rowana77 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FERPA Section

From a Wikipedia point of view, I must honestly say I'm uncertain as to whether there should even be this "FERPA" section on the page. I would like to get feedback from anyone who is NOT involved with the issue! BlackberryLaw 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention Rowana77 and other new editors - please don't remove cited portions of articles without any discussion or comment on why you're doing it in the first place. It really isn't helpful. However, if you think there's something wrong with including this particular FERPA information (or FERPA info in general), please join in the discussion about it! BlackberryLaw 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, BlackberryLaw --

Sorry, first-time user. I am a member of the Chapman communications department staff, and they've asked me to keep an eye on the page since an anonymous person sent us (via snail mail) a printout of the Chapman page containing the added section about FERPA -- clearly meant as a goad to make us monitor the page. The persons involved with posting this FERPA section are apparently involved with some sort of dispute with the university involving a group that participated in the fraternity approval process but did not make the final cut, and have somehow brought FERPA into the argument -- we think it may be persons involved with that group who are posting the FERPA paragraphs. Not sure of the whole story, but it's long and involved, and the online attacks against the university have been pretty sophomoric, if you ask me. We're not sure if the FERPA paragraphs they are posting are completely accurate, and in any case, they do not really belong on a page that is supposed to be general information about the university. They are obviously being posted by an individual who wants us to waste university time and effort editing the page (we're actually on summer break and kind of enjoying the very low-level excitement this is providing...but I'm kind of low on the totem pole, so it's not like the dean or president is making these edits, guys...they don't even know about it, and I'm just a working person like you). Anyway -- it would be nice not to have to monitor the page for these postings from someone who obviously has an axe to grind against the university. Rowana77 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the current FERPA information on Chapman's page is the product of deliberation and collaboration by a number of editors, not one lone student with an axe to grind. As it stands, there is no question that the information in the article is backed up by the cited OC Weekly story. The only question is whether this information is something that belongs on a college's article in the first place. It is not question to be answered solely by a self-admitted "member of the Chapman communications department staff." Wikipedia is not a place for schools (or anyone or anything else) to have articles solely portraying them in a positive light. I feel there is an argument to be made that this FERPA information is valuable to people interested in Chapman University. Additionally, several editors are discussing whether to replace information on one of Chapman's alleged previous FERPA violation from 2002. BlackberryLaw 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BlackBerryLaw, I am a parent and want you and any other contributors to know that this information regarding FERPA absolutely belongs on this page. When you pay $40,000 to send your child to college this is the type of information that is important to post and is what makes Wikipedia such an excellent source for information. Can the actual document related to this violation be located and posted? This would really be beneficial to any readers of this page.

Rowanna, - the FERPA issue appears to be factual. Whether someone has as you write, "an axe to grind" is irrelevant. The facts are the facts and by twisting the facts to state they are attacks is inappropriate. You write that you have been asked to monitor this page, but confirm that the dean and president don't even know about this. Maybe you should consult with them. I am certain the administration would be able to confirm if there was ever a FERPA violation and then your question regarding accuracy would be answered. If you don't want to monitor this page, confirm the facts and if they are indeed correct, then no monitoring is necessary.

Recent Deletions of Negative Publicity

Someone has recently removed sections of this article pertaining to negative things happening on campus. I urge this person to realize that Wikipedia is a place for knowledge, not opinions. If there are supporting facts and links to articles which support sections, those sections will remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.66 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More content has been deleted without discussion on this page. Please stop deleting sections without offering a reason why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.206.138 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we perhaps group the "controversy" stuff under a heading simply called "Controversy" (such as on UC Irvine's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California%2C_Irvine). Some people are obviously using this page as a battlefield to wage attacks on the university by bringing up arcane controversies of the sort that happen at all schools, large and small -- and then the university hits back with their side -- none of this really seems cogent to people who just want information about California universities. And just looking at this page, it seems to be getting out of hand. Sekhmet07 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you Sekhmet. UCI is a much bigger school than Chapman, allowing for a "Controversy" section. Chapman's article is less than a quarter of the size of UCI's, to compare the two isn't really logical. As a parent, I'd certainly want to read the information listed in Chapman's article before deciding to send my child there. 72.130.39.180 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That is neither here nor there. It doesn't matter how big or small a school, company or instition is. There's a way to handle these things on Wikipedia, and since this controversy seems to be slowly taking over a page that should be GENERAL INFORMATION about the university, it seems very out of place to have so many paragraphs detailing each separate tiny controversy. These things seem to be posted by activists interested in embarrassing the institution as much as they can, and Wikipedia should not be used for this sort of battle. If you, as I take it by reading between the lines, are a parent of one of the students involved in this matter, it means you are not a neutral party and really should not be editing this page - UNLESS you can write your edits in such as way as to represent ALL sides fairly. NOTE THAT "neutral point of view" (NPOV) - representing all sides fairly and without bias - is the most fundamental Wikipedia principle, and it seems it's not being followed on this Chapman page. Posting these controversies so high on the page violates the "undue weight" rule of Wikipedia, and one would think that the best way to handle this would be to group them together in a "Controversy" section, as was done on UCI page, much lower on the page. Here's what the "undue weight" article on Wikipedia says, to back this up: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." So -- although there are definitely published sources out there that agree with the Flat Earth viewpoint, an article on Earth would not mention this tiny minority viewpoint. Similarly, an article about Chapman University should focus on the university, its colleges, its facts and figures -- not on what a tiny minority of students or parents consider to be a controversy. Another example -- on the UCI page, there is no mention whatever of their major scandal of the past 10 years, the fertility clinic's egg-misplacing controversy. Yet this dominated news features in OC for almost a year. Could it be that editors did not consider it cogent to a page focused on general information about UCI? What about Harvard -- why is there no "controversy" section there, even when there have been controversies in recent years at the school? And what about Virginia Tech? No mention on VT's main page of the tragic mass murders, though that certainly dominated national and world headlines for a time; the tragedy was bumped to its own page, probably so it wouldn't dominate the university's general-information page. I'm not comparing the Chapman petty controversies to VT -- just saying that controversies posted by an active and non-neutral minority of people should not dominate a general information page. Sekhmet07 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Regarding Tony Garcia

This issue is really a controversy among students but I would like to see the topic discussed with no bias. The way the section is written, in my opinion, sounds biased, but thats why I nominated it for having the wrong POV. I'll let other editors give their opinion here. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapman Part of Wiki-Christianity

Come on people, are you serious? While most people know that Chapman has heavy undertones of Christianity all throughout campus, the school is non-denominational. Religious courses in a specific religion are not required. Chapman is not part of Wiki-christianity, unless of course you'd like to nominate it for Wiki Judaism and every other religion represented by students on campus. 72.130.39.180

Forrest Gump (and other films)

Ok, I am a Chapman student, AND just watched Forrest Gump to confirm it. Forrest Gump was not filmed at Chapman, at all, as neither were many other movie many people *claim* were filmed here (another common one is Back to the Future). I would just change it, but I am sure someone will change it back very quickly. There are many rumors on campus about what was filmed here and what wasn't. That Thing You Do: check. Accepted: check. Ghost Whisperer: check. Many other things: not true. Just because something was filmed on a park bench does not mean it was filmed at or by Chapman, so if you have "heard" something was filmed at Chapman, check it out for yourself first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.77 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On this note, I'm fairly sure The Fourth Kind was not filmed at Chapman, even if the interviews supposedly took place there. There is no room in any building on this campus that has 3 flat-panel screens like what resembled on screen. However just in case I'm incorrect, I won't remove it from the list just yet. --Fez2005 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Old news"

So, how long is the stuff about Sigma going to stay up? It is pretty much old news now (and I personally feel that it was never even close to a big deal, although I know members of the frat. would argue). The stuff about Tony Garcia has come and past, time for this to go as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.12.75 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing Old News

Rlsusc...Your comment is out of line: "These guys dragged the University through the mud, and even slandered a Holocaust-survivor as an anti-Semite"

Your comment relates to former Dean of Students, Joseph Kertes. To state these students slandered Mr. Kertes is outrageous. This was Mr. Kertes' defense when he finally realized that his actions were in violation of the law. Anti-semitism had nothing to do with the issue, but it was a nice distraction. The Sigma Alpha Mu issue was about first amendment rights...period.

Chapman's handling of the Sigma Alpha Mu matter was and is an important issue that needs to be on this site. The University, in all their wisdom violated California Education Code Section 94367 (Leonard Law). This law provides first amendment protection to students at private colleges and the fact that the University ignored such an important law is indeed relevant. This situation is no more a controversy than the civil rights issues that are part of the history of the University of Alabama and other southern institutions. As far as making this a Jewish issue - this was created solely by the University. The students in the fraternity and the national fraternity made it clear that anti-semitism was not an issue. The anti-semitic issue was merely the University's defense. The University knew they were wrong and administrators were reprimanded for their actions. The matter is not over as since this story was reported other students have come forth with similar allegations against the Chapman administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meliton (talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point, the Sigma Alpha Mu "controversy" is old news and, as one of the editors responsible for its initial inclusion and early defense, I think that it's worn out its welcome in this general article about Chapman. It was relevant when it was an ongoing issue. Now that things are resolved, I don't see a place for it here. Imagine if every college page kept accounts of every alleged violation or controversy - it would be unworkable. So, in the absence of any compelling argument to the contrary, I'll remove that section in a short time. BlackberryLaw (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rlsuusc- I know you've always had a problem with this information being up on the wikipedia page for Chapman University. I'm not sure if you're a university employee, or a member of Greek Life at Chapman. Either way, when a student's rights are violated, it is a big deal. A lot of users think that these men have "an axe to grind" against the university, however, after interviewing them for an article I wrote for the school paper a year back, I've seen that all the members really wanted was an outlet for the same kind of fraternal bond that on campus fraternities can enjoy. I'm not debating whether or not it should stay on wikipedia, but to be-little this argument by calling it a nothing-issue just shows your ignorance and flat out rudeness. I vote for the information to stay. 72.130.39.180 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Helander77; let's please make this stop. RE the comment on 27 October 2008: I would maintain that it is neither "ignorant" nor "rude" to state the facts. The news reports plainly show these guys went through a fraternity colonization process, lost fair and square, and then wanted to pretend they hadn't lost (or as you more euphemistically put it, they wanted "an outlet for the same kind of fraternal bond that on campus fraternities can enjoy"). A private university has its own First Amendment rights, and has the right to decide which new fraternities they want to charter. These guys dragged the University through the mud, and even slandered a Holocaust-survivor as an anti-Semite, just because they couldn't accept the fact that the University didn't pick the fraternity they wanted to join. And now some of them still would rather defame their own school on Wikipedia rather than let it go. Rlsusc (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please dump it -- it was never of real significance. It does as much damage to Wikipedia to be highjacked in this way as it does to the reputation of the University to have such a nothing issue given such prominence. --Rlsusc (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the Sigma Alpha Mu "controversy" again - I'm a Chapman alumnus and sick of seeing this every time I go to this page for general information about the university. It is very obviously from someone with an ax to grind, and as Blackberrylaw says, if every university (or corporation, or organization) was open to attack by every group or individual who had a gripe or controversy to air, Wikipedia would be a lot longer than it is, and a lot harder for users to parse through. Every university in the world has a long list of people and groups with gripes against it (some of which appear in newspapers, and thus are "verifiable"). To keep playing this one out here smacks of someone with an agenda. There should be no place for this on a general info page. Helander77 (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's out of line?? Again with this Sigma Moo hoo-ha. Someone with a huge ax to grind. Not appropriate at all for a general history of the university. This idiotic frat argument has been going on for more than a year and they are trying to play it out on Wikipedia because they lost otherwise. The university gave them rights on campus, end of story, even though they did not bother to go through the normal procedure to be approved as a registered fraternity. (Oh, wait, they did give a shot at the procedure, and pitched a huge temper tantrum when they weren't approved. None of the other fraternities that weren't approved pitched a similar fit -- they all accepted it and worked toward approval in the next cycle.) Please don't let them carry this childish ongoing tantrum onto Wikipedia, or use Wikipedia as their propaganda pulpit for a story that is of interest to a handful of people in the frat at most. The rest of us are tired of this. Helander77 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Sigma Moo vandalism again -- this seems clearly to be in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Again, this is a small student group trying to get publicity for an issue decided over a year ago, which Wikipedia administrators agreed was old news. If every student group who had a beef with every university posted their dirty laundry on Wikipedia, the general public would be parsing through reams of propaganda and opinion to get to the general info about the school. It does not belong on a general information page. Helander77 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed the frat-boy vandalism AGAIN, as seems to be a continuing problem here. As post says above, this clearly is in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality and does not belong on a general information page about the university. Go be juvenile on your own page.Sekhmet07 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen, people: The fraternity "controversy" is OLD NEWS. It doesn't belong on the Chapman page two years after it all went down. As a comparison, the UCLA_Taser_incident doesn't appear anywhere on the UCLA page, and it was a WAY bigger deal than this fraternity deal. It's time for it to go. BlackberryLaw (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jelena Jensen deletion

What? Jelena Jensen, who graduated MCL[citation needed], is not a notable alumna? What about WP:NOTCENSORED? (And I'm a Chapman alum.) --S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

She should be removed since it adds nothing to the article about the University. It is not censorship, she still has her own article it just her going to this university is not notable. --MarsRover (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite well said, but then how do any of the notable alums add to the article? They have their own articles as well. Many of them "just" went to Chapman. For example, it looks like Jodie Sweetin simply attended. Her article does not mention her graduating, much less Magna Cum Laude. (And I note, like Jensen's, that Sweetin's article does not cite a source for her attendance.) As far as WP:LISTV#INC goes, Jensen qualifies. --S. Rich (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC) PS: Eric Lloyd's article does not mention Chapman. 19:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Jodie Sweetin was a main character on a show most people have know of or perhaps seen. Jensen, on the other hand, is a porn star that almost no one heard of. The "Notable Alumni" sections have no purpose other than people find it interesting trivia to read about people they heard about going to a school they went to. But it only interesting if you heard of them. --MarsRover (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, you are quite right about the purpose of the Notable Alumni lists. But this seems to contradict what was posted earlier -- that is, what someone did after attending is the important factor, not that the person's attendance had anything to do with the article or the school. And at that point editors are free to make their own POV judgments on what is notable as to this person vs that person. No. Here is some guidance from WikiProject Schools: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Alumni. This guideline that allows Jensen and the others to be included in the list because it focuses on verifiability. (The guideline is silly in that it allows for everyone who attended even one day, ignoring the common definition of alumni (graduate of a school). But that is a different discussion.) In this case, we have Jensen attending, with a perhaps unreliable source (IMDb) as the reference (added just now by me). (Also, how do we know that Sweetin has a bigger fan following than Jensen. [I have NO interest in researching such numbers.] So, with Jensen added, properly, other editors are welcome to cull out those "alumni" who have similar (or less) RS backing up their notability at Chapman. If Jensen does not meet notability standards, the evaluation should be in accordance with WP:PORNBIO. If she gets AFD'd, then she can leave the notable alumni list. Until then, the point that I want to make is that deleting Jensen based on her profession is not proper. (PS: Interesting discussion!) --S. Rich (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
PS: Jensen has 46 page watchers and averages less than 1000 page views a day. Sweetin has 60 watchers and averages roughly 1k-2k page views a day. Is Sweetin twice as notable? But then, using watchers & page views, where do we draw the line? Both have a wikilink and both went to Chapman, so (again) they both get into the list. --S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So, your big verifiable proof is an IMdb reference you personally added? --MarsRover (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's no big deal -- I added an IMDb reference to Eric Lloyd as well. Now we have two verifications about actors attending Chapman, both have equal validity. (And Jensen has far more page views/watchers than Lloyd.) To censor or not to censor, that is the question. --S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jelena Jensen and a string of SPAs

Four attempts were made to remove Jelena Jensen from the list of notable alumni today. The attempts were made by four different single-purpose accounts:

Note that C23yesser admitted to a conflict of interest with the university in his/her edit summary.

Now, there's discussion above (#Jelena Jensen deletion) that shows that there is not consensus to remove Jensen from the article. There are sources in Jensen's article to corroborate her attendance of the university, and she still meets the guidelines for the notable alumni list as mentioned in the first discussion.

If an editor (or editors, but I highly suspect it's a single editor, or a single campaign, behind the accounts above) has a concern about Jensen's inclusion, I invite them to discuss the matter here. Creating a string of accounts, each of which does little more than remove Jensen from the list, does nothing to boost the cause—and may, in the long run, do more to keep her listed in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I, too, admit to my COI. I graduated from Chapman with a BA in history in 1978. Each deletion of Jelena will be restored IAW WP:NOTCENSORED.--S. Rich (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I told C.Fred on my Talk page that I am sympathetic to the argument that this person is not very notable and I'm ok with her being removed from this article on those grounds. But I don't feel strongly about this and am ok if others disagree. ElKevbo (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
From Dawn U: I know that wiki is not a democracy, but since this does seem like a place to express one's opinion, let me express mine. I usually judge notability by using the smart search function on Google. This particular individual is not recognized by google's smart search function whereas all the other alumni listed are, which makes her seem the least notable on the list.

Brandman University

Brandman University shouldn't really redirect to Chapman University since it is a separate entity. Does anyone know how to remove the redirect so a new page can be created?

Jahoerbelt (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Jaime

I've replied to this at Talk:Brandman University. Also, there is an AfC that this user has started at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brandman University. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chapman University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Question

Should we include the biannual world famous "undie run"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.140.32 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

World famous is debatable, but Chapman is already listed at Undie Run. Maybe a "See also" with that link at the most. 72Dino (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chapman University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chapman_University/Archive_1&oldid=1175396478"